JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 18 1. Pursuant to this Court's order dated February 22, 1996 Mr. Ramesh Tiwari, Forest Settlement Officer, has filed report relating to the Central Ridge. Mr. Kapil Sibal, appearing for some of the Institutions, states that a copy of the report be given to him so that he may be in a petition to assist this Court. A copy has been supplied to Mr. Sibal in the Court. Mr. Sibal states that he would have zerox copies made and give the same to any other counsel who would like to have it. We further direct the Forest Settlement Officer to issue notices to all the Institutions/persons, who are subject matter of his report, indicating that this matter shall be taken up by this Court for further hearing on April 3, 1996. 2. Mr. KTS Tulsi, learned Additional Solicitor General states that Union of India had undertaken to move the Central Reserve Police Force from the ridge area by May 1996. He states that necessary notifications under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act have been issued to acquire alternate land. He further states that some of the land owners have obtained stay orders from the High Court. His apprehension is that because of the stay order the movement of the Force from the ridge area may be delayed. Mr. Tulsi may approach the High Court for vacation of the stay order. He can bring to the notice of the High Court that this Court is seized of the matter Religious Institutions: 3. Pursuant to this Court's order dated February 22, 1996 a report has been placed on record by Mr. PC Jain, Consultant (Planning), Delhi Development Authority. Mr. Alphons, who is present in Court states that the report was prepared in consultation with him. It is stated in the report that the fencing of the religious institutions mentioned in the report shall be complete by May 31, 1996. Needless to say that the fencing has to be done keeping in view the order of this Court dated January 25, 1996. 4. In various orders passed till today in relation to ridge, we have directed Mr. Alphons to file reports in compliance to the said orders. Since Mr. Alphons has been shifted to another seat. We expect this work to be done by his successor in office. 4. In various orders passed till today in relation to ridge, we have directed Mr. Alphons to file reports in compliance to the said orders. Since Mr. Alphons has been shifted to another seat. We expect this work to be done by his successor in office. We place on record our appreciation for Mr. Alphons for assisting this Court in an efficient manner in dealing with various matters pertaining to ridge. ASOLA WILDLIFE SANTUARY 5. So far as the question of shifting of jhuggies at Devali Pahari, Balbir Nagar and Indira Nagar to some other place is concerned, various proposals were considered including the one which has been mentioned in para 4 of Mr. DC Khanduri's affidavit. The consensus is that the matter need further consideration. As suggested by Mr. Tiwari, ADM (R), we adjourn the hearing of this matter for 10 days. Meanwhile the proposal to shift these jhuggy dwellers by acquiring a fresh land belonging to Gaon Sabha nearabout may also be considered. The affidavit be filed within 10 days indicating the result of further consideration. GAON SABHA LAND: 6. This Court on January 25, 1996 passed the following order: "We have heard learned counsel for NCT, Delhi Administration regarding the Gaon Sabha area forming part of the Ridge. Learned counsel states that various proposals regarding handing over the Gaon Sabha are (part of the Ridge) to the Forest Department have been examined by a Committee appointed by the Administration. Finally, the Committee has taken a decision that a Notification under Section 35 of the Indian Forests Act, 1927 be issued. We are of the view that the Notification under Section 35 will not solve the problem which we are facing. The learned counsel states that the Committee was of the view that the provisions of Section 154 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 are not attracted because in view of the expression "on the commencement of the Act" in Section 154, power under the proviso to Section 154 could only be exercised at the time of the commencement of the Act and not thereafter. That may be one way of looking at the Section but since it is for the first time that a Committee has been appointed to examine this aspect and it was never examined earlier by the Delhi Administration at any point of time, we are prima facie of the view that the provisions of Section 154 can even now be invoked especially when it is crystal clear that this area is of no utility to the Gaon Sabha and in any case cannot be permitted to be used by Gaon Sabha for any purpose. This is Ridge area which has to be preserved. No cultivation or any type of construction can be permitted on this area. In this view of the matter, we request the committee to reconsider the question of issuing the notification under the proviso to Section 154 of the Act." 7. Pursuant to the above quoted order, Mr. GS Patnaik, Deputy Commissioner, Delhi has filed affidavit wherein it is stated "that the incorporation of extensive stretches of Gaon Sabha land is a serious matter which necessities careful deliberation at the level of Council of Ministers and Lt. Governor, Delhi. "It is further stated in the affidavit that further four weeks time was required to consider the matter. 8. We do not agree with Mr. GS Patnaik. In view of the order quoted above, nothing more remains to be done by the NCT, Delhi Administration, except to issue the necessary notification. We direct that the necessary notification be issued within three weeks from today. We further request the Lt. Governor, to have the matter expedited. The land is part of the ridge area. Even though it is not a reserved forest, it happens to be a forest. This area cannot be utilised in any manner in view of the prohibitions contained under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. In this view of the matter, issuing of notification is a simple formality to secure the area. We, therefore, reiterate and request the Lt. Governor to have necessary notification issued within time specified by us. 9. Compliance Report regarding disposal of the application of the plaintwin the matter titled as Gurmohan Singh v. Union of India. Pursuant to this Court's order dated January 25, 1996, Mr. NK Kaushik has sent his report. He stated that the application of Gurmohan Singh has been dismissed. Governor to have necessary notification issued within time specified by us. 9. Compliance Report regarding disposal of the application of the plaintwin the matter titled as Gurmohan Singh v. Union of India. Pursuant to this Court's order dated January 25, 1996, Mr. NK Kaushik has sent his report. He stated that the application of Gurmohan Singh has been dismissed. The Ridge Management Board can now proceed without any hindrance in the matter. Water Reservoirs on the Ridge (MCD): 10. We have explained to Mr. Mahajan and Mr. Mathur how to proceed so far as inspection of the water reservoirs is concerned. They may do it keeping in view our oral observation and file a report within one week. South Central Ridge: 11. On February 22, 1996 this Court passed the following order: "A copy of Mr. Jain's report be sent to Mr. Alphonse, Commissioner Land, Delhi Development Authority. Mr. Alphonse shall examine the report and give his response to the report within 10 days from today. Mr. Jain's report indicates that there are large number of unauthorised occupants who are operating as marble/stone dealers, automobiles workshop etc. According to Mr. jain, they are admittedly unauthorised. Mr. Alphonse, the Commissioner Land may examine the question of issuing notices to all these unauthorised persons directing them to stop functioning in the Ridge area. He may issue notices giving them a reasonable time to vacate the premises, failing which they may be removed forcibly from the area. Mr. Saharya to hand over a copy of this order to Mr. Alphonse within two days." 12. Mr. Jaitley, learned counsel for DDA states that the necessary notices as directed by us were issued to the marble dealers. Mr. Jaitley further states that about 83 automobile workshops are also occupying the ridge area. The DDA may proceed against them, in the same manner as it has proceeded under the direction of this Court against the marble dealers case. Mr. Jaitley states that some of the marble dealers have approached the Appellate Tribunal under the Delhi Development Act. We make it clear that no other Court or Tribunal shall entertain any proceeding in this respect because this Court is seized of the matter. If any proceedings have already been initiated, the same shall be stayed. 13. Mr. Mr. Jaitley states that some of the marble dealers have approached the Appellate Tribunal under the Delhi Development Act. We make it clear that no other Court or Tribunal shall entertain any proceeding in this respect because this Court is seized of the matter. If any proceedings have already been initiated, the same shall be stayed. 13. Mr. Jaitley states that the marble dealers and others to whom notices have been issued or in the process of being issued, may appear before Commissioner Land Management at 2.00 p.m. on 18th, 19th and 20th March, 1996 and explain their difficulties to the Commissioner. We have no doubt that the DDA and all its authorities shall render all possible help to these dealers and other persons who are being removed from the ridge area under the directions of this Court. I.A. NO. 22: 14. The matter is adjourned to 21st march, 1966 at 2.00 p.m. 15. Mr. Panjwani states that there are certain hot mixed plants in the area which have not been included in the proceedings. The, Central Pollution Control Board may issue notice to these Industries so that they may also be dealt with on 20th March, 1996. 16. Note prepared by Mr. Gopal Subramaniam be taken on record.